ᐅ Who is responsible for restoring the height of the garage/parking space?
Created on: 27 Sep 2023 15:54
D
darksun
Hello,
we have built and now there is some uncertainty about who is responsible for the costs of the necessary retaining walls (L-shaped concrete blocks) in the area of the garages and parking space.
For your information, there are two houses. The driveway area and house area for both houses have been excavated and are now at (let’s say) 0 meters (0 feet) elevation.
This is correct.
The area for the two garages and the parking space between the garages is also at 0 meters (0 feet).
Garage A is retaining earth at the back and will be backfilled with soil.
The adjacent parking space area A will have retaining walls at the rear, so that the garden area can be restored to the elevation shown in the building plan (let's say: 270 cm (106 inches)).
Neighbor A will pay for these retaining walls.
What is unclear is the area marked in red.
Retaining walls are also needed there, because the sidewall of Garage B is not earth-retaining and must be protected from soil pressure.
Neighbor A argues:
B must pay because the original elevation, as shown in the development plan (in the garden area), must be restored, and soil must therefore be replaced along the 2-meter (6.5 feet) area of the Garage B sidewall.
Neighbor B argues:
Neighbor A must pay for the retaining walls on the sidewall of their garage (2 meters / 6.5 feet) so that soil does not press against and damage their garage wall.
The replaced soil would damage Neighbor B’s garage.
What is the correct interpretation of the elevations in the development plan?
Does A have to bear the costs so that this elevation can be restored,
or does B have to pay because the red-marked area must be brought back to the elevation in the development plan at their expense?
we have built and now there is some uncertainty about who is responsible for the costs of the necessary retaining walls (L-shaped concrete blocks) in the area of the garages and parking space.
For your information, there are two houses. The driveway area and house area for both houses have been excavated and are now at (let’s say) 0 meters (0 feet) elevation.
This is correct.
The area for the two garages and the parking space between the garages is also at 0 meters (0 feet).
Garage A is retaining earth at the back and will be backfilled with soil.
The adjacent parking space area A will have retaining walls at the rear, so that the garden area can be restored to the elevation shown in the building plan (let's say: 270 cm (106 inches)).
Neighbor A will pay for these retaining walls.
What is unclear is the area marked in red.
Retaining walls are also needed there, because the sidewall of Garage B is not earth-retaining and must be protected from soil pressure.
Neighbor A argues:
B must pay because the original elevation, as shown in the development plan (in the garden area), must be restored, and soil must therefore be replaced along the 2-meter (6.5 feet) area of the Garage B sidewall.
Neighbor B argues:
Neighbor A must pay for the retaining walls on the sidewall of their garage (2 meters / 6.5 feet) so that soil does not press against and damage their garage wall.
The replaced soil would damage Neighbor B’s garage.
What is the correct interpretation of the elevations in the development plan?
Does A have to bear the costs so that this elevation can be restored,
or does B have to pay because the red-marked area must be brought back to the elevation in the development plan at their expense?
Slanted, considered, yet right-angled is definitely more "appealing."
The garages have not only strip foundations but also 1m (3.3 ft) deep lateral load protection!
Both garages are designed to resist earth pressure only at the rear.
Digging out Hans, yes, he did write:
> "Everyone commissioned the excavation company for digging out 'their' area; we both have the same excavation company (otherwise it would have been 'more complicated')."
Or what is meant?
The garages have not only strip foundations but also 1m (3.3 ft) deep lateral load protection!
Both garages are designed to resist earth pressure only at the rear.
Digging out Hans, yes, he did write:
> "Everyone commissioned the excavation company for digging out 'their' area; we both have the same excavation company (otherwise it would have been 'more complicated')."
Or what is meant?
S
sascha-t4-le29 Sep 2023 07:25I’m repeating myself for the last time, this is not your area! This is his excavation pit, which he sloped on your property.
Something different. Now, if the question of responsibility has been clarified and it is established that your neighbor has to take care of it (this could be a long process and lead to conflict), he will still need your permission to place the retaining walls on your property. Have you thought about that? And what if you don’t grant it to him (after a long dispute)?
Something different. Now, if the question of responsibility has been clarified and it is established that your neighbor has to take care of it (this could be a long process and lead to conflict), he will still need your permission to place the retaining walls on your property. Have you thought about that? And what if you don’t grant it to him (after a long dispute)?
sascha-t4-le schrieb:
And you don’t grant this to him (after a long argument).Why shouldn’t he grant it to him? Not everyone goes through life with their elbows out aggressively. There won’t be a long argument either if @darksun starts backfilling 😉
Well, you can already consider neighbor B’s approach as deliberate if he initially orders his garage to be soil-retaining only at the back, even though he should be aware that soil will also come in from the left side.
In this respect, it would be understandable if neighbor D refuses to accommodate the tolerance of L-shaped concrete footings, etc., although I personally would not handle it that way.
In this respect, it would be understandable if neighbor D refuses to accommodate the tolerance of L-shaped concrete footings, etc., although I personally would not handle it that way.
Yes, but after a certain deadline, it will be filled in, and B will have saved money while the industry ends up with 2 more L-shaped blocks.
B will definitely be in a dilemma, or actually already is. But he is trying his luck with A.
The issue is not about filling in A, but about removing B. Just because both processes happen simultaneously, A and B must be considered separately.
B will definitely be in a dilemma, or actually already is. But he is trying his luck with A.
The issue is not about filling in A, but about removing B. Just because both processes happen simultaneously, A and B must be considered separately.
I’m not sure about the legal aspects. If I remember correctly (public law, 3rd semester or so), by jointly commissioning an earthmoving contractor, they automatically form a civil-law partnership (similar to a joint venture). So, from a legal standpoint, they cannot be considered separately. One contract, one project, etc. Internally, they can sort out the details among themselves later. But, for example, if they had also hired the earthmoving contractor for laying all the stones, the contractor could approach either party individually to settle the entire invoice. And so on. For this reason, I would strongly advise the original poster not to create any fait accompli yet, but first consult a lawyer.
Similar topics